from an email with subject: My Visit to the 2026 L.P. National Convention
by: Jacob Hornberger May 25, 2026
I just returned from a 2-day visit to the 2026 Libertarian Party National Convention in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I wasn’t a delegate, by choice, simply because I’ve never been able to sit through all those motions and amendments to motions and other procedural matters that characterize L.P. conventions. But I wanted to just hang out and touch base with L.P. members for a couple of days. I had nice visits with a number of people, including a short visit with two of my fellow contenders for the 2024 LP. presidential candidacy, Lars Mapstead and Chase Oliver, who won the party’s nomination. Someone took a picture of the three of us standing together but I don’t know who that was. Maybe he’ll post it online.
Two concepts of freedom
One thing came across loud and clear at the convention: Everyone favors freedom. The L.P. officers. The moderators. The speakers. The L.P. rank and file. Every single L.P. member, without exception, strongly favors freedom.
The problem, however, is that there are two concepts of freedom within the Libertarian Party, and they are very different from each other.
One is the reform concept of freedom, which is based on reforming infringements on freedom.
The other is the removal concept of freedom, which is based on removing, not reforming, infringements on freedom.
I would estimate that around 90 percent, more or less, of L.P. members are adherents of the reform concept of freedom and that only 10 percent, more or less, are adherents of the removal concept of freedom.
Even though the overwhelming majority of L.P. members favor the reform concept of freedom, there is one great big problem with it: It isn’t freedom — not genuine freedom. Freedom — genuine freedom — necessarily entails identifying what infringements on liberty the state has imposed on people and then removing them.
When one reforms infringements on liberty, rather than remove them, the infringement remains intact, albeit in a reformed way. When the infringement remains intact, the person whose freedom is being infringed by the state remains unfree.
At best, reform of infringements on freedom might improve an unfree person’s plight (but not necessarily because sometimes reform results in a worse situation), but it does not free him, given that the infringements on freedom remain intact.
Pre-Civil War reform
Let’s consider a hypothetical. Let’s assume that a state L.P. convention was taking place in 1855 in Alabama. One can imagine the adherents to the reform concept of freedom calling for legislation that reforms slavery in the following manner: no more lashings, better food, shorter work hours, improved healthcare, and some education for the slaves.
All of these reforms would improve the plight of the slaves. No doubt about it. But there would be one great big problem: It wouldn’t be freedom. Freedom would necessarily entail the removal of slavery — that is, its immediate termination.
What would the L.P. advocates of the reform concept of freedom say to me at their convention in 1855 Alabama? They would say:
“Jacob, if we adopted your removal concept of freedom, what would happen with our membership drive, which we have just initiated and which is being funded by large donors who like our message of reform? Why, with your position, Jacob, we would most definitely lose both members and donors.
“Moreover, how would our candidates get votes here in Alabama if we are calling for the immediate end of slavery? By taking the reform position or even a position that calls for gradually ending slavery over the next 50 years, we garner more respect and credibility among the electorate.
“Indeed, Jacob, how do you expect us to retain our ballot-access status with your radical position? Do you want us to have to go out and start getting petition signatures again?
“You just aren’t practical or pragmatic, Jacob. Remember — we are a political party, not a libertarian think tank. Our job is to run candidates and win elections.”
My response:
“All of that might well be true. But it is of secondary importance to me. I want freedom for the slaves, now, not later. That is my top priority. That necessarily means squarely standing for freedom. The way I figure it is that we libertarians have to stand for what’s right — we need to stand for immediate freedom — genuine freedom, even if that means less members, donations, and votes. That necessarily means standing for the immediate end of slavery, regardless of the consequences.
How do we know that that is what today’s Libertarian Party adherents of the reform concept of freedom would have said back in 1855 Alabama? Because that’s what they say to justify or rationalize their measures to reform the serfdom system under which we live today: school vouchers, run for school boards, secure the border, Ellis Island, reform ICE, legalize only marijuana, repeal civil-asset forfeiture, privatize and continue Social Security, preserve Medicare with health-savings accounts, foreign interventionism when it is in our national interests, reduce military spending, rein in the CIA and FBI, reform FISA, gradualism, reduce spending and debt, strengthen the dollar, small government, term limits, get better people into public office, appoint liberty-movement members to head regulatory commissions, and countless other reform measures. But none of them is freedom because all of them leave infringements on freedom intact.
Just check out the websites of L.P. candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and president and I will guarantee you that you will find some variation of the reform positions listed above — or maybe even just silence regarding the burning issues of the day (e.g, immigration, Social Security, Medicare, sanctions, state-sponsored assassinations, etc.) The reform positions they take could easily be embraced by Republicans.
The revolving door
There is another factor to consider: It is these Libertarian Party reform measures that have given rise to the revolving door that has been established between the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. As everyone knows, Republicans feel very comfortable coming through the revolving door and running for office as Libertarians. That’s because, with some variations here and there, Republican positions are same as L.P. reform positions. (See my recent Substack article “The Differences Between Republicans, Republican-Lites, Pragmatists, and Principled Libertarians.”) Over time, the Libertarian Party has essentially become a junior varsity team for the Republican Party and, even worse, in 2024 very publicly aligned itself, with massive nationwide publicity, with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
It’s worth pointing out that two 2024 L.P. presidential candidates have since gone through the revolving door and returned home to the Republican Party. Of course, they aren’t the only L.P. members who go back and forth through the revolving door. And why not? Their Libertarian reform positions are essentially the same as Republican positions.
One good example of this phenomenon is school vouchers. I’d estimate that 100 percent of the estimated 90 percent of L.P. adherents to the reform concept of freedom support school vouchers, which are nothing more than a socialist device intended to reform and improve the public (i.e., government) school system. It’s not surprising that school vouchers have also long been one of the most popular positions in the Republican Party.
Another example is immigration. Both Republicans and virtually all the 90 percent of libertarian reformers favor a system of immigration controls to “secure the border” as well as some version of the deadly and destructive immigration police state that enforces it.
It’s probably also worth mentioning that some Libertarian Party members who are adherents of the reform concept of freedom were supporters of the presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a progressive who is a strong supporter of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and other socialist measures. Kennedy’s L.P. supporters said that there was nothing wrong with Libertarian Party members supporting welfare-statists like Kennedy given that the the Libertarian Party was now a “big tent” political party.
An invitation to join the Republican Party
At the Grand Rapids convention in Grand Rapids, I happened to run into a woman friend who played a principal role in the presidential campaign of one of those two 2024 L.P. presidential candidates who have recently returned to the Republican Party. She told me that she too has gone over to the Republican Party and has joined the Republican “Liberty” Caucus. (My quotation marks.) There is no doubt in my mind that she feels perfectly comfortable there — as comfortable as when she was in the Libertarian Party.
My woman friend then invited me to join her and come over to the Republican Party. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that I wouldn’t be caught dead joining the Republican Party, especially given that Republicans hate most every libertarian position I stand for, especially open borders, immediately repealing Social Security, Medicare, and public (i.e., government) schooling, dismantling the national-security establishment, separating healthcare and the state, and legalizing all drugs. I just thanked her for her kind invitation, smiled, and excused myself.
The GOP’s “Freedom” Caucus
It’s probably worth mentioning that certain “liberty movement” Republicans in Congress have a group called the “Freedom” Caucus. (My quotation marks.) There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP members of that group are as convinced as reform-oriented Libertarians are that they are advocating freedom. But they aren’t, even if they are convinced they are. That’s because, again, reform of infringements on liberty is not freedom. Freedom necessarily entails the removal, not the reform, of infringements on freedom. I also have no doubts that every member of the Republican “Freedom” Caucus would feel totally comfortable walking through the revolving door, entering the L.P., and running for office as a Libertarian. That’s because their positions, basically and, of course, with some variations, are the same as the positions of Libertarian reformers.
Paradigm shifts
It is my belief that a certain percentage of the 90 percent of the Libertarian Party who adhere to the reform concept of freedom will never come over to principled libertarianism. They absolutely hate the genuine principles of libertarianism, such as open borders, the separation of school and state, dismantling the national-security establishment and restoring a limited-government republic, immediately repealing Social Security, Medicare, and other socialist programs, legalizing all drugs, not just marijuana, and many more. I have concluded that there is no possibility whatsoever that they will ever come around to embracing the principled libertarian case for freedom. They will always be either Republicans or Libertarian Party advocates of reform or both.
But I’m also believe that there is a large percentage of that 90 percent who are open to self-examination. If the L.P. members in this group were to conclude that they are on the wrong track with their support for the reform concept of freedom, I’m convinced that they would be willing to shift positions and join the estimated 10 percent of us who adhere to principled libertarianism.
If we could double the adherents of genuine libertarianism to 20 percent of the party membership, then I believe that there is a big chance of achieving a paradigm shift within the Libertarian Party, one that would restore the Libertarian Party as a “party of principle” rather than a “party of reform.” In fact, the management guru W. Edwards Deming pointed out that a paradigm shift can take place within an organization even without having a majority of people in favor of the new paradigm. All it takes is a knowledgeable, committed, passionate, and motivated minority.
If we could succeed in achieving such a paradigm shift within the L.P., the Libertarian Party would then be positioned to lead the way toward the same type of paradigm shift in America — one that would entail the removal, not the reform, of all infringements on freedom.